CHAPTER FIVE
HOVER PERFORMANCE
PAGE 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 
5.1 

5.2 PURPOSE OF TEST 
5.1 

5.3 THEORY 
5.1 

5.3.1 General 
5.1 

5.3.2 Main Rotor Power Required 
5.2 

5.3.2.1 General 
5.2 

5.3.2.2 Blade Element Analysis (Profile Power) 
5.4 

5.3.2.3 Momentum Analysis (Induced Power) 
5.12 

5.3.3 Total Power Required 
5.17 

5.3.4 Nondimensional Coefficients 
5.19 

5.3.5 Figure of Merit 
5.21 

5.3.6 Generalized Hover Performance 
5.25 

5.3.7 Referred Hover Performance 
5.26 

5.3.8 Compressibility Effects (Mach Effects) 
5.29 

5.3.9 Ground Effect 
5.29 

5.3.9.1 General 
5.29 

5.3.9.2 Flow Pattern Effects 
5.30 

5.3.9.3 Pressure Field Effects 
5.30 

5.4 TEST METHODS AND TECHNIQUES 
5.32 

5.4.1 General 
5.32 

5.4.1.1 
Weight 
5.33 
5.4.1.2 
Altitude 
5.33 
5.4.1.3 
Rotor Speed 
5.33 
5.4.2 Power Train Oscillations 
5.34 

5.4.3 Free Flight Hover 
5.35 

5.4.3.1 General 
5.35 

5.4.3.2 Ground Referenced 
5.36 

5.4.3.3 Hover Height Measuring Device (HHMD) 
5.36 
5.i
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
5.4.3.4 Air Referenced 
5.37 

5.4.3.5 Data Required 
5.38 

5.4.3.6 Test Criteria 
5.38 

5.4.3.7 Data Requirements 
5.39 

5.4.3.8 Safety Considerations/Risk Management 
5.39 

5.4.4 
Tethered Hover 
5.40 

5.4.4.1 Data Required 
5.42 

5.4.4.2 Test Criteria 
5.42 

5.4.4.3 Data Requirements 
5.42 

5.4.4.4 Safety Considerations/Risk Management 
5.43 

5.5 DATA REDUCTION 
5.43 

5.5.1 General 
5.43 

5.5.2 Manual Data Reduction 
5.44 

5.5.3 USNTPS Computer Data Reduction 
5.49 

5.6 DATA ANALYSIS 
5.54 

5.6.1 General 
5.54 

5.6.2 Hover Performance 
5.54 

5.6.3 Hover Ceiling 
5.56 

5.6.3.1 
Power Margin 
5.57 

5.6.4 IGE / OGE Transition 
5.58 

5.7 MISSION SUITABILITY 
5.59 

5.8 SPECIFICATION COMPLIANCE 
5.60 

5.8.1 General 
5.60 

5.8.2 Power Available 
5.60 

5.9 GLOSSARY 
5.60 

5.9.1 Notations 
5.60 

5.9.2 Greek Symbols 
5.64 

5.10 REFERENCES 
5.64 
5.ii
HOVER PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER FIVE
FIGURES
PAGE 

5.1 Motion of Air Particle Relative to Blade 
5.3 
5.2 Motion of Air Particle Relative to Air MASS 
5.4 
5.3 Rotor Blade Element in Hover 
5.5 
5.4 Variation of Section Profile Drag Coefficient with Angle of Attack (NACA 0012, M = 0.3, Ref: TN4357) 
5.11 
5.5 Actuator Disc in Hover 
5.15 
5.6 Figure of Merit 
5.24 
5.7 Rotor Power Loading Versus Disc Loading 
5.25 
5.8 Flow Patterns In and OutOfGround Effect 
5.30 
5.9 Ground Effect  Pressure Field 
5.31 
5.10 Ground Effect  Change in Power 
5.32 
5.11 Free Flight Hover Method with Weighted Line 
5.35 
5.12 Free Flight Hover Method with HHMD 
5.37 
5.13 Tethered Hover Method 
5.41 
5.14 Referred Hover Performance 
5.48 
5.15 Nondimensional Hover Performance 
5.48 
5.16 Hover Efficiency 
5.49 
5.17 Hover Performance 
5.53 
5.18 Hover Ceiling Working Plot 
5.56 
5.19 Hover Ceiling 
5.57 
5.20 Incremental Hover Performance 
5.59 
5.iii
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
CHAPTER FIVE
dR= 
dL 
+ 
dD _{0} 
dR= 
dT + 
dF 
EQUATIONS
dT = dLcos a _{i}  dD _{0} sin a _{i}
dF = dL sin a _{i} + dD _{0} cos a _{i}
dL = C _{l} q _{e} 
dS 

dD _{0} = C _{d} _{0} q _{e} dS 

r 
(W r) ^{2} 

dT 
= 
2 
cos ^{2} 
a _{i} 
c 
dr (C _{l} 
cos a _{i} 

dT 
= 
1 
r (W 
r) ^{2} 
c dr 

_{2} 
C _{l} 

^{T} 
perblade 
^{=} 
Ú 
^{d}^{T} 
^{=} 
Ú 
1 (W r) ^{2} r 

T 
_{b} 
= 
1 _{6} 
s 
_{R} 
C _{l} 
r 
A 
_{D} (W 
R) ^{2} 

r 
(W 
r) 
2 

dF 
= 
2 
cos ^{2} _{a} i c dr (C _{l} sin 
a _{i} 

C _{d} _{0}
cdr C _{l}
+
C _{d} _{0}
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{1} 

_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{2} 

_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{3} 

_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{4} 

eq 5.5 

eq 5.6 

sin a _{i} ) 
eq 5.7 
eq 5.8 

eq 5.9 

eq 5.10 

cos a _{i} ) 
eq 5.11 
5.iv
HOVER PERFORMANCE
dF
=
1
_{2} r
(W r) ^{2}
dP= dF (r) W
P _{b}
P _{0}
=
=
1
_{8}
1
_{8}
s _{R}
s _{R}
(C _{d} _{0}
C _{d} _{0}
P ^{T} ^{u} = P ^{a} = C ^{1}
P _{T} _{d} =P _{a} + q _{w} = C _{2}
c dr (C _{d} _{i}
+
C _{d} _{0} )
+
r
C _{d} _{i} )
r
A _{D}
A _{D} (W R) ^{3}
(W R) ^{3}
D
P = P _{T} _{d}  P _{T} _{u} = q _{w}
^{T}
A
F
D
1
= D P = _{2} r
=
^{d}^{m}
dt
D
V
2
v _{w}
(D P) A _{D} = r
A _{D} (v _{w} ) v _{i}
T
= ^{d}^{m}
dt
D D = 2
P _{i}
= Tv _{i}
=
eq 5.12
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{1}_{3}
eq 5.14
eq 5.15
eq 5.16
eq 5.17
eq 5.18
eq 5.19
eq 5.20
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{2}_{1}
eq 5.22
eq 5.23
eq 5.24
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
^{+}
1
_{8} s _{R} C _{d} _{0} r
A _{D} (W
^{P} TOTAL ^{=} ^{P} i ^{+}
^{P} 0 ^{+} ^{P} TR ^{+} ^{P} Acc ^{+} ^{P} loss
C
_{T} =
C
_{P} =
C _{T}
C _{P}
=
=
^{T}
r
a A D
r
a A D
^{P}
(W
(W
R) ^{2}
R) ^{3}
^{=} ^{f}
^{=} ^{f}
(
1
_{6}
s _{R} C _{1}
1
8 ^{s} R
(
C
_{d}
_{0}
+ C
_{d}
_{i}
_{)}
(
T
s
P
s
, N _{R}
,N _{R}
_{)}
_{)}
C _{T}
= f
Ê
Á
Ë
W, H _{D} ,
1
^{N} R
ˆ
˜
¯
C _{P}
= f
Ê
Á
Ë
RSHP, H _{D} ,
1
^{N} R
ˆ
˜
¯
eq 5.25 

eq 5.26 

R) ^{3} 
eq 5.27 
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{2}_{8} 

eq 5.29 

eq 5.30 

eq 5.31 

eq 5.32 

eq 5.33 

eq 5.34 

eq 5.35 

eq 5.36 
5.vi
HOVER PERFORMANCE
M¢
M¢
=
=
C
3
2
3
W _{S} = C _{T} r _{S} A _{D} (W R _{S} ) ^{2}
RSHP _{S} = C _{P} r _{S} A _{D} (W R _{S} ) ^{3}
W _{S}
= W _{T}
r
r
S
T
Ê
Á
Ë
˜
W R _{S} ˆ
W R _{T} ¯
2
ESHP _{S}
= ESHP _{T}
r
S
Ê
Á
W
R _{S} ˆ
˜
R _{T} ¯
r
T
Ë
W
^{W} ref
Ê
Á
^{=} W ^{T} s T Ë
^{N}
R S
^{N}
R T
ˆ
˜
¯
2
ESHP _{r}_{e}_{f}
Ê
= ^{E}^{S}^{H}^{P} ^{T} Á
Ë
^{N}
R S
s
T
^{N}
R T
ˆ
˜
¯
3
3
5.vii
eq 5.37
eq 5.38
eq 5.39
eq 5.40
eq 5.41
eq 5.42
eq 5.43
eq 5.44
eq 5.45
eq 5.46
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
H _{P} _{c}
= H _{P} _{o}
+
D H _{P} _{i}_{c}
+
^{T} a ^{=} ^{T} o ^{+} ^{D} ^{T} ic
s _{T}
= ^{d}
q
=
^{d}
Ê
Á T a
Ë
^{T} ssl
ˆ
˜
¯
D H _{p}_{o}_{s}
ESHP _{T} = K _{Q} (Q) (N _{R} _{T} )
GW = ESGW 
FU
GW = ESGW  FU + Cable Tension
W R
= K _{G}_{R}
(
N
R
T
)
Ê 2p
Ë
60
ˆ
_{¯}
(R)
ESHP _{r}_{e}_{f} = f(W _{r}_{e}_{f} )
ESHP _{r}_{e}_{f} =
3
2
A _{0} + A _{1} W _{r}_{e}_{f}
d
q
s
=
=
=
P
a
^{P} ssl
^{T} ^{a}
^{T} ssl
^{r}
^{r} ssl
=
Ê
Á
Ë
_{1}
_{}
^{l} ssl
^{H} P
^{T}
ssl
_{=} OAT + 273.15
288.15
=
d
q
ˆ
˜
¯
5.viii
^{g} ssl
^{g} ^{c}
^{l} ssl ^{R}
eq 5.47
eq 5.48
eq 5.49
eq 5.50
eq 5.51
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{5}_{2}
eq 5.53
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{5}_{4}
eq 5.55
eq 5.56
^{e}^{q} ^{5}^{.}^{5}^{7}
eq 5.58
HOVER PERFORMANCE
ESHP = ^{E}^{S}^{H}^{P} ^{r}^{e}^{f} ^{(}^{s} ^{)}
Ê
Á
Ë
^{N}
R S
^{N}
R T
ˆ
˜
¯
3
^{W} ref
^{=}
^{W} ^{S}
s
ESHP = ESHP _{r}_{e}_{f} (s )
5.ix
eq 5.59
eq 5.60
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{6}_{1}
CHAPTER FIVE
HOVER PERFORMANCE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with determining helicopter hover performance. Where Chapter 4 was concerned with establishing engine power available, this chapter will discuss determining airframe power required to hover. Engine power available and airframe power required to hover will be combined to determine aircraft hover performance. The theory of the hovering rotor is presented and considers an aircraft of fixed configurations only. Different test methods commonly in use are examined. Pilot test techniques, scope of test, and the limitations associated with each test are discussed.
5.2 PURPOSE OF TEST
The purpose of this test is to evaluate aircraft hover performance characteristics. Airframe power required to hover will be determined and combined with engine power available to establish aircraft hover performance.
5.3 THEORY
5.3.1 General
The objective of hover performance tests is to determine the power required to hover in ground effect (IGE) and out of ground effect (OGE). The theory of this test is based on the basic aerodynamic theory of the hovering rotor. The hovering rotor is reviewed; however, detailed mathematical derivations and lengthy written explanations are omitted. The intent of the following discussion is to explain how theory is used to support data collection, reduction, and extrapolation.
The total hover power required for a single main rotor helicopter can be measured directly at the power plant output driveshaft (engine shaft horsepower). The total power
required is the sum of the main rotor power (P _{M}_{R} ), tail rotor power (P _{T}_{R} ), accessory
5.1
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
power (P _{A}_{c}_{c} ), and the transmission (or gear box) losses (P _{l}_{o}_{s}_{s} ) involved in transmitting
this power. Torque and shaft rotational speed are normally used to determine power requirements. Torque and shaft speed can be measured at the engine output, main rotor, and tail rotor. The power plant output shaft speed and gear box ratios are used to determine shaft rotational speeds at the torque measurement points. Additional instrumentation may be provided to determine tail rotor gear box efficiencies; however, the losses in this area are generally small.
When considering power requirements of a rotor, it is necessary to have a general understanding of the actual rotor operation. The aerodynamics of a rotor are very complex. First order approximations are used generally for analysis and to establish methods of extrapolating rotor power requirements. The analysis need not be completely rigorous because the intent is to show trends, important parameters, and major effects. If secondary effects could not be neglected or if first order approximations could not be made, it would be very difficult to establish the generalizations which allow many performance flight tests to be practical. Profile drag, tip losses, blade interference, etc. are targets of the first order approximation approach. In many cases, the simplifying assumptions are restrictive and although applicable to one flight regime, may not be reasonable in another. This is not a serious problem if the restriction of the assumption is understood and a correction is predictable.
5.3.2 Main Rotor Power Required
5.3.2.1
GENERAL
The power required to drive the main rotor is the sum of induced power (P _{i} ) and
profile power (P _{0} ). Induced power is power required to develop thrust and will be
estimated by the momentum theory. Profile power is power required to rotate the rotor blades against the viscous action of the air and will be estimated by the blade element theory.
Prior to discussing the blade element and momentum theory, it is necessary to analyze the flow of air relative to the rotor blade. In a threedimensional situation, such as a rotor of finite span, the lifting surface creates a downward acceleration of the air passing the surface. If the air is assumed to have a velocity equal and opposite to the blade
5.2
HOVER PERFORMANCE
rotational speed, the flow is deflected as it passes the blade, as shown in Figure 5.1. The downward velocity imparted to the air as it passes the lifting blade is called induced velocity
(v _{i} ) and the angle through which the stream is deflected at the blade is the induced angle
(a _{i} ). Notice that the air is initially deflected upstream of the blade and continues to turn
downstream of the blade, ultimately to an angle equal to twice that at the blade. It is also useful to visualize the same phenomenon considering the blade moving relative to the stationary air, as shown in Figure 5.2.
Particle Upstream
Particle at Blade
^{a} i
Particle Downstream
Figure 5.1 Motion of Air Particles Relative to Blade
5.3
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
2
^{v} i
^{v} i
Particle Upstream
Particle at Blade
Particle Downstream
Figure 5.2 Motion of Air Particle Relative to Air Mass
5.3.2.2 BLADE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (PROFILE POWER)
To examine the effect of the induced velocity on the aerodynamic reactions at the blade, cut an element out of a hovering rotor at an arbitrary radius, r, from the center of rotation (Figure 5.3). The blade element resultant aerodynamic force (dR) acting on the blade element is composed of two components: the blade element lift, which is normal to
the local resultant velocity through the rotor (V _{R} ); and the blade element profile drag,
which is parallel to the local velocity, or:
Where:
dR= dL + dD _{0}
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{1}
dR 
 Blade element resultant aerodynamic force 
dL 
 Blade element lift 
dD _{0} 
 Blade element profile drag. 
5.4
cos
C ^{d}^{0}
HOVER PERFORMANCE
C _{d} _{o}
sin
_{i}
<< C _{l}
Figure 5.3 Rotor Blade Element in Hover
cos
These components of the resultant force are interesting because they are predictable aerodynamically; however, the components of dR normal and parallel to the plane of rotation are more pertinent to performance analysis:
dR= dT + dF
5.5
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{2}
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
Where:
dR 
 Blade element resultant aerodynamic force 
dT 
 Blade element thrust 
dF 
 Blade element torque force. 
The component of the resultant aerodynamic force perpendicular to the plane of
rotation, dT (thrust), is composed of a component of dL minus a component of dD _{0} , and
is the “useful” force being produced by the rotor. The other component of dR, parallel to the plane of rotation, is dF (torque force) and is composed of a component of dL (usually
called induced drag) plus a component of dD _{0} :
dT = dLcos a 
_{i}  dD _{0} sin a _{i} 

And: 

dF = dL sin a 
_{i} + dD _{0} cos a _{i} 

Where: 
dT  Blade element thrust
dL  Blade element lift
a _{i}
dD _{0}
 Induced angle
 Blade element profile drag
dF  Blade element torque force.
The element lift and drag can be expressed as:
^{A}^{n}^{d}^{:}
Where:
dL
= C _{l} q _{e}
dS
dD _{0} = C _{d} _{0} q _{e} dS
dL  Blade element lift
C _{l}
 Blade element lift coefficient
5.6
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{3}
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{4}
eq 5.5
eq 5.6
HOVER PERFORMANCE
q _{e}
dS  Blade element area
 Blade element dynamic pressure
dD _{0}
C _{d} _{0}
 Blade element profile drag
 Blade element profile drag coefficient.
First considering the thrust and substituting Equation 5.5 and Equation 5.6 into Equation 5.3:
Where:
dT
=
r (W r) ^{2}
2 cos ^{2}
a _{i}
c
dr (C _{l}
cos a _{i}

C _{d} _{0}
sin a _{i} )
dT 
 Blade element thrust 

r 
 Density 

W 
r 
 Blade element rotational velocity 
a 
_{i} 
 Induced angle 
c 
 Blade chord 

dr 
 Blade element radius 

Cl 
 Blade element lift coefficient 

C _{d} _{0} 
 Blade element profile drag coefficient. 
eq 5.7
Analysis of the induced velocity will show that W r >> v _{i} ; thus a _{i} is a small
angle. Therefore, cos a _{i} @ 1.0 and sin a _{i} @ a _{i} . Generally, Cl >> C _{d} _{0} .
Therefore, the second term in the differential thrust equation (Equation 5.7) can be neglected when compared to the first term:
Where:
dT
=
1
_{2}
r
(W
r) ^{2}
c dr C _{l}
dT 
 Blade element thrust 

r 
 Density 

W 
r 
 Blade element rotational velocity 
5.7
eq 5.8
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
c 
 Blade chord 
dr 
 Blade element radius 
Cl 
 Blade element lift coefficient. 
The total thrust per blade can be determined by integration along the blade:
Where:
^{T} perblade
^{=}
Ú
^{d}^{T}
T 
 Thrust 

dT 
 Blade element thrust 

r 
 Density 

W 
r 
 Blade element rotational velocity 
c 
 Blade chord 

dr 
 Blade element radius 

Cl 
 Blade element lift coefficient. 
^{=}
Ú
1
2
r
(W r) ^{2}
cdr C _{l}
eq 5.9
For a first approximation, the integration is simplified by specifying:
1. 
Density constant (incompressible). 
2. 
Element chord constant (no taper). 
3 
The element lift coefficient replaced by the average value along the blade, 
( Cl ).
For “b” number of blades, the total thrust produced is:
Where:
T _{b}
=
1
_{6}
s
_{R}
C _{l}
Tb  Thrust of b blades
s _{R}
 Rotor solidity ratio
r
A _{D} (W R) ^{2}
Cl  Average blade element lift coefficient
5.8
eq 5.10
HOVER PERFORMANCE
r  Density
A _{D}
W R
 Rotor disc area
 Blade rotational velocity.
Analysis of the torque force is done in a similar manner:
Where:
r 
(W r) 
2 

dF 
= 
2 
cos ^{2} 
_{a} i 
c dr (C _{l} sin 
a _{i} 
+ 

dF 
 Blade element torque force 

r 
 Density 

W 
r 
 Blade element rotational velocity 

a 
_{i} 
 Induced angle 

c 
 Blade chord 

dr 
 Blade element radius 

Cl 
 Blade element lift coefficient 

C _{d} _{0} 
 Blade element profile drag coefficient. 
C _{d} _{0}
cos a _{i} )
eq 5.11
The small angle approximation is again applied but, in this case, it cannot be justified that either term be neglected (Figure 5.3). The equation can then be written as:
dF 
= 
1 _{2} r 
(W r) ^{2} 
c dr (C _{d} _{i} 
+ 
C _{d} _{0} ) 

Where: 

dF 
 Blade element torque force 

r 
 Density 

W 
r 
 Blade element rotational velocity 

c 
 Blade chord 

dr 
 Blade element radius 

C _{d} _{i} 
 Blade element induced drag coefficient, C _{d} _{i} 
= Cl 

C _{d} _{0} 
 Blade element profile drag coefficient. 
5.9
a _{i}
= Cl sin
eq 5.12
a _{i}
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
The power required, in ftlb/s, to rotate the blade element about the shaft axis is:
Where:
dP= dF (r) W
dP 
 Blade element power required 
dF 
 Blade element torque force 
r 
 Radius to blade element 
W 
 Rotor angular velocity. 
The integration over b blades produces:
Where:
P _{b}
=
1
_{8}
s _{R}
(C _{d} _{0}
+
C _{d} _{i} )
r
A _{D}
P _{b}
s _{R}
C _{d} _{0}
C _{d} _{i}
 Power required for b blades
 Rotor solidity ratio
 Average blade element profile drag coefficient
 Average blade element induced drag coefficient
r  Density
A _{D}
W R
 Rotor disc area
 Blade rotational velocity.
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{1}_{3} 

(W R) ^{3} 
eq 5.14 
To simplify the integration, C _{d} _{0} and C _{d} _{i} were taken to be constant along the blade.
The blade element profile drag coefficient, C _{d} _{0} , varies little over the normal angle of attack
and Mach number range of the operating rotor and, for these conditions, can be assumed constant (Figure 5.4). Either high angle of attack or high Mach number may cause large
increases in C _{d} _{0} and, therefore, increases in power required. The blade element induced
drag coefficient, C _{d} _{i} , varies considerably with changes of a or C _{L} . Thus, in general, the
changes in rotor power required at constant
power.
N _{R} are due to changes in rotor induced
5.10
Blade Element
_{d} 0
Drag Coef
C
HOVER PERFORMANCE
Angle of Attack  deg
a
Figure 5.4 Variation of Section Profile Drag Coefficient with Angle of Attack (NACA 0012, M = 0.3, Ref: TN4357)
Analysis of power required is handled easily if the induced power term is predicted by the momentum theory. Blade element theory is used only to analyze the profile term. The above development shows the profile power to be:
Where:
P _{0}
=
1
_{8}
s _{R}
C _{d} _{0}
r
A
_{D} (W R) ^{3}
P _{0}
s _{R}
C _{d} _{0}
 Profile power
 Rotor solidity ratio
 Average blade element profile drag coefficient
r  Density
A _{D}
W R
 Rotor disc area
 Blade rotational velocity.
eq 5.15
The induced power must be added to the above profile power to determine total main rotor power required.
5.3.2.3 MOMENTUM ANALYSIS (INDUCED POWER)
5.11
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
The momentum theory of rotor action visualizes the thrust created as a reaction to the force required to accelerate the air mass through an ideal actuator disc. The analysis affords a simple solution to the induced power required (power to overcome the induced drag of the rotor blades) by making many simplifying but restrictive assumptions. The results, then, are only approximations because of the many differences between the ideal actuator disc and the real rotor. However, many useful relationships are produced. Corrections can be applied to the results to account for the major discrepancies.
Listed
below
are
the
basic
assumptions
of
the
momentum
theory,
and
parenthetically, the major corresponding consequences:
1. Inviscid, frictionless fluid (no profile drag).
2. Rotor acts as a disc with an infinite number of blades imparting a constant energy to the fluid (no periodicity of the wake).
3. Flow through the disc is uniform (optimum induced velocity and no tip losses).
4. Constant energy flow ahead of and behind the disc.
The static pressure in the flow acted on by the rotor changes in accordance with the Bernoulli equation and the disc sustains a pressure difference. However, the air far
upstream of the hovering rotor is initially at zero velocity and at ambient pressure (P _{a} ), and
far downstream the ultimate wake must be at ambient pressure once again but moving with
a velocity, v _{w} . Considering the flow to be incompressible, and examining the conditions
far upstream and far downstream (Figure 5.5):
^{A}^{n}^{d}^{:}
P ^{T} ^{u} = P ^{a} =
C ^{1}
P _{T} _{d} =P _{a} + q _{w} = C _{2}
5.12
eq 5.16
eq 5.17
HOVER PERFORMANCE
Where:
So that:
Where:
P _{T} _{U}
P _{a}
P _{T} _{D}
q _{w}
C
_{1} , C _{2}
D P
P _{T}
P _{T}
q _{w}
_{U}
_{D}
 Upstream total pressure
 Ambient pressure
 Downstream total pressure
 Wake dynamic pressure
 Constant.
D P = P _{T} _{d}  P _{T} _{u} = q _{w}
 Pressure change
 Upstream total pressure
 Downstream total pressure
 Wake dynamic pressure.
eq 5.18
This pressure difference sustained by the actuator disc is the force produced per unit disc area, or:
Where:
1
A ^{T} = D P = _{2} r
D
2
v _{w}
T  Thrust
A _{D}
 Rotor disc area
 Pressure change
 Density
 Ultimate wake velocity.
D P
r
v
_{w}
eq 5.19
The above equation shows the dependence of the wake dynamic pressure (q _{w} ) on the disc
loading (T /A _{D} ) and, as an approximation, describes the wake velocity (v _{w} ) imposed on
the surroundings under the lifting disc.
5.13
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
For steady flow, Newton's law states:
Where:
F =
F  Force
m  Mass
D V
 Change in velocity
t  Time.
^{d}^{m}
dt
D V
eq 5.20
The thrust produced by the rotor is the product of the mass flow rate through the rotor and the change in velocity of that mass. When describing the flow rate at the disc, Newton's law can be written:
Where:
(D P) A _{D} = r
D P
A _{D}
r  Density
v _{w}
v _{i}
 Pressure change
 Rotor disc area
 Ultimate wake velocity
 Induced velocity at hover.
A _{D} (v _{w} ) v _{i}
Therefore:
v _{w}
= 2v _{i}
_{e}_{q} _{5}_{.}_{2}_{1}
From the above, it is seen that the pressure and velocity along the stream vary, as shown in Figure 5.5. The variations of stream tube size is given by the continuity equation, (AREA) (VELOCITY) = CONSTANT, for incompressible flow.
5.14
Figure 5.5 Actuator Disc in Hover
Using the relationship between wake velocity and induced velocity and substituting in Equation 5.21:
Where:
T
= ^{d}^{m}
dt
T
m
D V
r  Density
A _{D}
v _{i}
t  Time.
 Thrust
 Mass
 Change in velocity
 Rotor disc area
 Induced velocity at hover
D D
= 2 r
5.15
^{2}
A _{D} v _{i}
eq 5.22
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
Or, because of interest in the magnitude of the induced effects and assuming T hover:
Where:
v _{i}
=
v _{i}
 Induced velocity at hover
T  Thrust
r  Density
A _{D}
W  Weight.
 Rotor disc area
^{=}
@
W in
eq 5.23
The power required to accelerate the air mass through the disc, induced power, assuming
T @
W at a hover, is:
Where:
P _{i}
= Tv _{i}
P _{i}
v _{i}
 Induced power
 Induced velocity at hover
T  Thrust
r  Density
A _{D}
W  Weight.
 Rotor disc area
=
^{=}
eq 5.24
It should be noted that the induced velocity, v _{i} , was assumed to be constant across
the disc which is an optimum situation and, thus, the induced power indicated by this
analysis is a minimum.
5.16
HOVER PERFORMANCE
5.3.3 Total Power Required
The major portion of the total power being produced by the engine (ESHP) is absorbed by the main rotor shaft. The main rotor power (RSHP) is composed of the induced power and the profile power. The ratio of RSHP to ESHP of a single main rotor
helicopter is defined as mechanical efficiency, h _{m} :
Where:
h _{m}
h _{m} =
RSHP
ESHP
 Mechanical efficiency
RSHP  Rotor shaft horsepower ESHP  Engine shaft horsepower.
eq 5.25
h _{m} is typically about 0.85 in hover. The mechanical efficiency is a measure of the engine
power required to overcome various mechanical losses and includes the power required to
An
analysis of the tail rotor power required is not presented in this manual. Remember the purpose of the tail rotor is to balance the torque reaction to the rotation of the main rotor. Thus, the tail rotor power requirement, in hover, is dependent on the power input to the main rotor. ESHP is typically divided 85% to RSHP and 15% to miscellaneous uses. Of
drive the tail rotor, which has its own components of induced and profile power.
the 85% that goes RSHP about 25% goes to P _{0} and about 60% to P _{i} . The 15%
miscellaneous power is split between P _{l}_{o}_{s}_{s} , P _{A}_{c}_{c} , and P _{T}_{R} .
P _{A}_{c}_{c} is the engine power supplied to pumps, generators, cooling fans, etc.,
necessary to run the many auxiliary systems in the aircraft and may vary widely depending on the loads imposed on the accessory systems. The transmission losses are a result of
friction in the drive train and are primarily a function of N _{R} , thus remaining about constant
for the helicopter. The tail rotor power is included in the miscellaneous 15% but is really not a constant value. Since it is a rotor and subject to the same power effects as the main rotor, the tail rotor power required varies as a function of rotor speed and density conditions.
5.17
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
The main rotor power required to hover, P _{M}_{R} , can be written:
Or:
Where:
^{+}
1
_{8} s _{R} C _{d} _{0} r
P _{M}_{R}
 Main rotor power required
 Induced power
 Profile power
P _{i}
P _{0}
T  Thrust
s _{R}
C _{d} _{0}
 Rotor solidity ratio
 Average blade element profile drag coefficient
r  Density
A _{D}
W R
 Rotor disc area
 Blade rotational velocity.
A _{D} (W
The total power required to hover, P _{T}_{O}_{T}_{A}_{L} , can be written:
Where:
P _{T}_{O}_{T}_{A}_{L}
P _{i}
P _{0}
P _{T}_{R}
P _{A}_{c}_{c}
P _{l}_{o}_{s}_{s}
^{P} TOTAL ^{=} ^{P} i ^{+} ^{P} 0
^{+} ^{P} TR ^{+} ^{P} Acc ^{+} ^{P} loss
 Total power required to hover
 Induced power
 Profile power
 Tail rotor power required
 Accessory power required
 Power loss.
5.18
eq 5.26
R) ^{3} 
eq 
5.27 
_{e}_{q} 
_{5}_{.}_{2}_{8} 
HOVER PERFORMANCE
5.3.4 Nondimensional Coefficients
Examination of the main rotor power required equation reveals that the induced power depends on gross weight and density altitude, and the profile power depends on these two variables (through the average profile drag coefficient) and rotor speed. The effect of these variables on hover power can be determined and the results expressed as nondimensional power and weight coefficient.
C 

And: 

C 

Where: 
_{T} =
_{P} =
^{T} 

r 
a A D 
(W 
R) ^{2} 
^{P} 

r 
a A D 
(W 
R) ^{3} 
C _{T} 
 Thrust coefficient 
C _{P} 
 Power coefficient 
P 
 Power 
T 
 Thrust 
r _{a} 
 Ambient air density 
A _{D} 
 Rotor disc area 
W R 
 Blade rotational velocity 
s 
 Density ratio 
N _{R} 
 Main rotor speed. 
^{=} ^{f}
(
^{=} ^{f}
(
T
s
P
s
, N
_{R}
,N
_{R}
_{)}
_{)}
eq 5.29
eq 5.30
Substituting Equation 5.10 for T in Equation 5.29 and substituting Equation 5.14 for P in Equation 5.30 gives:
C _{T}
=
1
_{6}
s _{R} C _{1}
5.19
eq 5.31
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
And:
Where:
C _{P}
=
1
8 ^{s} R
(
C
_{d}
_{0}
+ C
_{d}
_{i}
_{)}
eq 5.32
C
C
s _{R}
_{P}
_{T}
 Thrust coefficient
 Power coefficient
 Rotor solidity ratio
Cl  Average blade element lift coefficient
C
C
_{d} _{0}
_{d} _{i}
 Average blade element profile drag coefficient
 Average blade element induced drag coefficient.
In the case of the hovering helicopter, where T
@
W , the thrust and power
coefficients are variable only with gross weight, rotor speed, and density altitude:
C 

And: 

C 

Where: 
_{T}
_{P}
= f
= f
Ê
Á
Ë
Ê
Á
Ë
C
C
_{T}
_{P}
W
RSHP
H _{D}
N
_{R}
 Thrust coefficient
 Power coefficient
 Weight (helicopter)  Rotor shaft horsepower
 Density altitude
 Main rotor speed.
W, H _{D} ,
1
^{N} R
ˆ
˜
¯
RSHP, H _{D} ,
1
^{N} R
5.20
eq 5.33 

ˆ 

˜ 

¯ 
eq 5.34 
HOVER PERFORMANCE
The total main rotor power required to hover can now be expressed in terms of the nondimensional coefficients:
Where:
C _{T}
C _{P}
s _{R}
C _{d} _{0}
5.3.5
C _{P}
=
=
1
_{8} s _{R} C _{d} _{0}
eq 5.35
 Power coefficient
 Thrust coefficient
 Rotor solidity ratio
 Average blade element profile drag coefficient.
Figure of Merit
The efficiency of a lifting rotor is determined by comparing the actual power required to produce a given amount of thrust with the minimum power required to produce that thrust. The minimum amount of power required to produce a given amount of thrust is obtained with an ideal rotor where the induced power is minimum (uniform flow), zero profiledrag exists, and there are no rotational or tip losses. Therefore, for an ideal rotor, the rotor efficiency would be unity and the figure of merit (M' ) is 1.
In estimating the effectiveness of a lifting rotor at a hover, the relationship for figure of merit becomes:
Where:
M' =
T v _{i} =
Minimum Power Required
P Actual Power Required
M'  Figure of merit
T  Thrust (= weight)
v _{i}
 Induced velocity at hover (Ideal)
P  Power required to hover.
5.21
eq 5.36
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
Substituting Equation 5.23 for v _{i} :
Where:
M¢
=
M¢ 
 Figure of merit 
T 
 Thrust 
P 
 Power require to hover 
r 
 Density 
A _{D} 
 Rotor disc area. 
eq 5.37
Thus, as the figure of merit approaches unity, the thrust per unit shaft horsepower is increased.
Uniform flow is associated with an ideal rotor, hence the figure of merit is 1. However, the figure of merit of a rotor having nonuniform flow and some profile drag is not a unique number but varies as a function of the thrust coefficient.
The ideal rotor power required to hover will always be less than actual power required for two reasons. First, profile power requirements are nonexistent for the ideal rotor and second, momentum analysis underpredicts the induced power requirements because of losses incurred by the actual rotor. The figure of merit expression, in coefficient form, of a rotor with profile power requirements and without induced power losses (uniform flow) is as follows:
M¢
=
3
5.22
eq 5.38
HOVER PERFORMANCE
Or: 

M¢ 
= 

Where: 
C P
M¢
C _{T}
C _{P}
s _{R}
C _{d} _{0}
 Figure of merit
 Thrust coefficient
 Power coefficient
 Rotor solidity ratio
 Average blade element profile drag coefficient.
eq 5.39
Thus, for a particular value of rotor solidity and profile drag coefficient, the figure
of merit increases with increasing thrust coefficient. As C _{T} increases and induced power
increases, the profile power becomes a relatively smaller contribution to the efficiency of the rotor (figure of merit). However, when the profile drag coefficient is no longer constant but increasing, a further increase in thrust coefficient results in a reduction of figure of merit (Figure 5.6).
Since ground effect produces a significant change in the power required to hover, the same change is reflected in the figure of merit. The power required to produce a given
amount of thrust (C _{T} ) decreases with increasing ground effect (higher figure of merit).
Figure 5.6 illustrates the effects of profile drag coefficient and IGE and OGE for an actual hovering rotor on the figure of merit.
5.23
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
1.0
M' = 
3
2
C
T
2

_{C} P 

0 
Thrust Coefficient
T
C ^{T} = r _{a} A _{D} (W R) ^{2}
Figure 5.6 Figure of Merit
Figure 5.7 graphically presents a performance envelope for the hovering helicopter
(T = W) in terms of disc loading (T /A _{D} ) and power loading (T/P). Generally, a figure of
merit of 0.75 is considered typical of a good rotor, while a value of 0.50 is representative of a poor rotor.
5.24
4.0
2.0
0
HOVER PERFORMANCE
Figure 5.7 Rotor Power Loading Versus Disc Loading
5.3.6
Generalized Hover Performance
Using the nondimensional relationships for main rotor power required and figure of merit, a method of generalizing hover performance data can be established:
Where:
And:
C
C
_{1}
2
M¢
3
5.25
eq 5.40
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
3
will
vary linearly with C _{P} . The main rotor power coefficient relationship further implies that
The figure of merit relationship implies that at a constant figure of merit, C
2
T
3
C 2
T
will vary linearly with C _{P} as long as C _{d} _{0} remains constant. This assumption C _{d} _{0} =
Constant is made to generalize hover performance data.
Linearizing the data is relatively accurate until C _{d} _{0} begins to vary significantly. In
the high C _{T} range, the faired line generalization can no longer be used and caution must be
exercised when extrapolating data for values of C _{T} not obtained during flight test. Since
W in a hover, generalized hover performance is expressed either in terms of gross
weight and horsepower or nondimensional terms.
T @
5.3.7 Referred Hover Performance
The magnitudes of C _{T} and C _{P} are typically C _{T} = 0.005 and C _{P} = 0.0003 and are
not very meaningful to the pilot. As a result, hover performance data is often presented in
terms of a referred system.
When a given value of RSHP (C _{P} ) is determined by actual measurements during a
hover test, the information represents a data point corresponding to a given weight or C _{T}
condition. The test is repeated for the desired C _{T} range.
The values of density (r ) and tip speed (W R ) obtained during the above tests do
not generally correspond to a set of standards for which the data is desired. To obtain the
desired performance data, numerous values of C _{T} and C _{P} are multiplied by the standard
values of (W R ) and ( r ). The value selected for r is the standard value and the value for
(W R ) is the tip speed corresponding to the rotor speed stated in the detail specification or
the operator's manual for hover performance. When C _{T} (Equation 5.29) and C _{P}
(Equation 5.30) are multiplied by the nondimensionalizing terms (standard values), the results are weight (standard) and rotor shaft horsepower (standard).
W _{S} = C _{T} r _{S} A _{D} (W R _{S} ) ^{2}
5.26
eq 5.41
HOVER PERFORMANCE
And:
RSHP _{S} = C _{P} r _{S} A _{D} (W R _{S} ) ^{3}
Where:
WS
RSHP _{S}
C _{T}
C _{P}
r _{S}
A _{D}
W R _{S}
 Standard weight
 Standard rotor shaft horsepower
 Thrust coefficient
 Power coefficient
 Standard density
 Rotor disc area
 Standard blade rotational velocity.
eq 5.42
Substituting the nondimensional relationships for C _{T} and C _{P} :
W _{S}
= W _{T}
r
S
Ê
Á
W
R _{S} ˆ
˜
r T
Ë W R _{T} ¯
2
And: 

ESHP _{S} 
= ESHP _{T} 

Where: 
r
r
S
T
Ê
Á
Ë
˜
W R _{S} ˆ
W R _{T} ¯
W _{S}
ESHP
W _{T}
ESHP
r
r _{T}
W
W
_{S}
R _{S}
R _{T}
_{S}
_{T}
 Standard weight
 Standard engine shaft horsepower
 Test weight
 Test engine shaft horsepower
 Standard density
 Test density
 Standard blade rotational velocity
 Test blade rotational velocity.
5.27
3
eq 5.43
eq 5.44
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
The above equations are used to determine standard gross weight and standard rotor shaft horsepower. If the standards chosen for the desired performance data are sea level, standard day conditions, the above equations reduce to the following which is known as the referred system.
And:
Where:
W _{r}_{e}_{f}
ESHP
W _{T}
ESHP
s _{R}
N _{R} _{S}
N _{R} _{T}
_{r}_{e}_{f}
_{T}
^{W} ref
Ê
Á
^{=} W ^{T} s T Ë
^{N}
R S
^{N}
R T
ˆ
˜
¯
2
ESHP _{r}_{e}_{f}
Ê
= ^{E}^{S}^{H}^{P} ^{T} Á
Ë
^{N}
R S
s T
^{N}
R T
ˆ
˜
¯
3
 Referred weight
 Referred engine shaft horsepower
 Test weight
 Test engine shaft horsepower
 Test density ratio
 Standard main rotor speed
 Test main rotor speed.
eq 5.45
eq 5.46
The referred system eliminates the need to determine C _{T} and C _{P} .
Referred power may be either engine or rotor shaft horsepower. Engine shaft horsepower is the total power required to hover and is the sum of main and tail rotor power and transmission losses. The relationship between RSHP and ESHP is called the mechanical efficiency and often includes the tail rotor power required. This approach is not entirely accurate as tail rotor power varies with density, just as the main rotor power varies. However, this assumption allows suitable extrapolated hover performance using referred
engine shaft horsepower (ESHP _{r}_{e}_{f} ) and referred gross weight (W _{r}_{e}_{f} ).
5.28
HOVER PERFORMANCE
5.3.8 Compressibility Effects (Mach Effects)
Compressibility is an aerodynamic phenomenon that causes an abrupt and large increase in drag as the velocity of an airfoil approaches the speed of sound. In a helicopter, compressibility effects occur at the tip of the advancing blade where the highest Mach numbers occur. Compressibility is generally associated with high speed forward flight but may be noticeable with combinations of high altitude, cold temperature, and high values of
C _{T} . The influence of compressibility effects on performance is expressed in terms of
increasing power required at a constant C _{T} (gross weight) and can be as high as 15% in
extreme cases.
The determination of hover ceilings is generally accomplished by extrapolating sea level hover performance to the desired altitude. This method generally produces relatively accurate results which are, however, occasionally optimistic. This discussion is intended only to acquaint the reader with compressibility and the limitations associated with extrapolated hover performance.
5.3.9 Ground Effect
5.3.9.1
GENERAL
Ground effect for a hovering helicopter can be defined as the change in power required to hover as the distance between the rotor disk and the ground decreases. There may or may not be an inground effect (IGE) hover guarantee to evaluate but there should be a requirement to determine IGE hover performance. Three specific gross weights should be investigated as time permits and in the following order: normal mission takeoff gross weight, maximum overload gross weight, and minimum mission landing weight. When determining a hover height to evaluate hover performance, it is important to determine the mission heights that are planned for operational use and the detailed specification requirement height.
5.29
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
5.3.9.2 FLOW PATTERN EFFECTS
As the distance between the hovering rotor and the surface below it is decreased to a distance that is approximately less than twice the rotor diameter, the flow pattern through the rotor changes. Figure 5.8 illustrates the difference in flow patterns IGE and OGE.
Out of Ground Effect
In Ground
Figure 5.8 Flow Patterns In and OutOfGround Effect
5.3.9.3 PRESSURE FIELD EFFECTS
The changes in performance near the ground that result from the pressure field can be favorable or unfavorable depending on the type of vehicle. As the rotor wake impinges on the surface, a region of greater than ambient pressure is created causing the deflection of the wake. The high pressure region is maintained by the centrifugal force of the air particles on the curved path as shown in Figure 5.9.
5.30
HOVER PERFORMANCE
Ambient Pressure
Pressure Gradient
Ambient Pressure
Pressure Gradient
Pressure Gradient
Air Particle
Centrifugal Force
Figure 5.9 Ground Effect  Pressure Field
For momentum analysis, the thrust produced by an actuator disc is
T = A _{D} (D P). As the rotor approaches the ground, the pressure field below the disc
provides an additional DP on the disc which produces more thrust at a constant power, or reduces the power required at a constant thrust.
The effect becomes more pronounced as the rate of flow increases, that is, as the ratio of height to rotor diameter decreases. An approximate ratio of the power required to produce a certain thrust for a helicopter IGE to OGE and the effect on hover performance
5.31
ROTARY WING PERFORMANCE
is shown in Figure 5.10. In rigorous analysis, this power correction involves only induced effects which influence the size of the correction and the height above which no correction is necessary (OGE).
^{P} OGE
^{P} IGE
1.0
0.8
Figure 5.10 Ground Effect  Change in Power
5.4 TEST METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
5.4.1 General
There are two basic tests which provide hover performance data, free flight hover method and tethered hover method. These two techniques may be modified in several ways. The basic objective of all hover performance testing is the acquisition of power
required data for the C _{T} range that describes the operating envelope of the test helicopter.
The tests are based on the variation of at least one parameter found in the coefficient of thrust equation.
^{T}
^{=} ^{f}
(
T
_{s}
, N _{R}
_{)}
C _{T}
=
r a A D
(W R) ^{2}
eq 5.29
5.32
HOVER PERFORMANCE
It may be necessary to vary more than one parameter in an effort to extend the range
of C _{T} obtained. The sele
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.